Sex Roles, VoL 9, No. 11, 1983

Are the Fruits of Research Available to All?

The Effects of Sex and Academic Rank on

Reprint-Sending Behavior 1

Alan Searleman, :~ C. Donald Morris, Mark Becker, and Vivian P. M a k o ~ y st. Lawrence University

There is considerable evMence in the psychological Eterature that perceived status often has a major effect on behavior. The primary purpose o f the present study was to examine the effects o f two status variables in an academic setting by monitoring reprint-sending behavior. Reprints were requested from 1,200 authors o f psychological articles by men and women of varying academic rank. Neither sex nor academic rank o f requester had any significant effect on the total number o f responses returned. However, male requesters received responses significantly faster than dM female requesters. In addition, subsequent analyses indicated that reprint requests were more likely to be honored by male authors than by female authors.

It has been well documented that a person's status frequently influences the way he or she is treated by others. Nearly any introductory social psychology text presents a discussion of the relationship between status and privilege, ingratia- tion, communication, personal space, etc. (e.g., Berkowitz, 1980; Jones, Hendrick, & Epstein, 1979; Penner, 1978; Raven & Rubin, 1976). The most generally ac- curate statement to characterize the relationship between status and the be- havior of others is that higher status people get preferential treatment.

1 The authors wish .:o thank George Gibson, Dean of St. Lawrence University, for providing the financial support for this research. The authors also wish to thank Wendy Schweigert and Sandra Diliellc for their valuable assistance in collecting and scoring the data.

2 Correspondence should be sent to Alan Searleman, Department of Psychology, St. Lawrence University, Canton, New York 13617.

1091

0360-0025/83/1100-1091 $03.00/0 Q 1983 Plenum Publishing Corporation

1092 Searleman, Morris, Becker, and Makosky

Within the faculty community, the clearest single dimension of status is academic rank. Other determinants of status may vary from school to school, but be acknowledged within a given institution. Still other status variables, although operative across schools, are not explicitly acknowledged. Sex can be an example of the latter type of variable. In fact, much evidence indicates that to be male is to be of higher status (for reviews, see Bernard, 1966; Frieze, Parsons, Johnson, Ruble, & Zellman, 1978; Henley, 1977).

Explicit rights and responsibilities which tend to be relatively limited and formal are attached to the attainment of a given rank in many institutions. However, with regard to the dissemination of information, academicians would like to believe that their behavior is not influenced by status in any way that would be detrimental to those of lower status. It is important to note that the status variable of academic rank is attained through achievement and is change- able over time. In contrast, the status variable of sex is one which a person neither acquires nor achieves; sex is a characteristic present at birth and not amenable to change. It would be interesting to determine whether or not these two types of variables have similar effects on the behavior of academicians.

The purpose of the present study was to examine the effects of these two types of status variables on the professional collegial behavior of sending a reprint of published material to a person who requests it. This behavior was chosen as a subtle index of collegial preferential treatment which is not likely to be influenced by the demand characteristics of a laboratory study. In ad- dition, although this behavior is of general interest and relevance to social and behavioral scientists, it has the advantage of having received little attention to date (Seiler, 1979). A second aim of the present study, therefore, was to provide normative data on the likelihood of a reprint request being honored, and the speed with which responses are typically received.

METHOD

Subfects

Subjects were 1,200 primary authors of recently published articles covering a wide range of topics within the general field of psychology. A "primary" au- thor was defined as the person listed in Current Contents: Social and Behavioral Sciences as the source for further information concerning the article. Only one reprint request was sent to each primary author, who was not necessarily the first author of the article, although a primary author of one article could be a nonprimary author of a different article. Finally, only primary authors whose addresses were in the continental United States were used as subjects. This was done to eliminate the substantial differences that exist in the mailing rate

Reprint Behavior 1093

across national boundaries and overseas. Differential mailing rates within the continental United States are of a much smaller magnitude and were assumed to be randomly distributed among the experimental conditions.

Design

In order to examine the effects of sex and academic rank on reprint- sending behavior, 200 subjects were randomly assigned to each of six experi- mental conditiens in a 2 × 3 factorial design. To manipulate the sex variable, we used the two names "Joan Tyler" and "John Tyler." These names were chosen because they are simple, commonplace, and not obviously related to a specific ethnic or minority group. Furthermore, these names are very similar in terms of orthography and pronounceability. To manipulate academic rank, we chose the labels "graduate student," "assistant professor," and "professor." It was assumed that these labels would cover a moderate range of status posi- tions and at the same time would be status levels likely to be encountered in actual reprint requests.

Because we were concerned about the possible artificiality of adding these labels to the signatures on the reprint request cards, each of us reviewed our own files ef reprint requests. An informal survey of these files indicated that approximately 18% of the requests provided some information about the requester's status (e.g., Jack Smith, Ph.D., Ann Johnson, Assistant Professor), and all three of the proposed labels were represented. We therefore felt con- fident that the chosen procedure would be a reasonable way in which to manipu- late academic rank.

Procedure

In order to identify 1,200 subjects for the study, it was necessary to have access to a relatively current listing of articles published in the psychological literature. Two such sources exist -Psychological Abstracts and Current Con- tents: Social and Behavioral Sciences. While most psychologists are familiar with the form and content of Psychological Abstracts, Current Contents is less well known. Current Contents, a weekly publication of the Institute for Scientific Information, published the tables of contents of journals in a wide variety of disciplines (e.g., anthropology, economics, geography, law, psychology, special education). We decided to use Current Contents instead of PsyehologicalAbstracts because the listing of articles in the former appears to be more up-to-date. In addition, and perhaps more importantly, Current Contents provides an "Author Address Directory" in the back of each issue. A particularly helpful feature of this directory is that it lists the most appropriate author, who is not necessarily the first author, for correspondence concerning the article.

1094 Searleman, Morris, Becker, and Makosky

The following procedure was used to determine which authors to include in the sample. Within each issue of Current Contents the pages listed under the heading "Psychology" were located. The initial article of the first journal listed in the "Psychology" section was assigned the number 1. Subsequent articles were numbered in the order in which they were printed. A table of random numbers was used to determined which articles would be selected for inclusion in the sample. The first number generated was the first article included. Sub- sequent random numbers were used to designate the number of intervening articles to be skipped. For example, given the sequence of random numbers 1, 3, 7, and 4, articles numbered 1, 4, 11, and 15 would be selected. Beginning with the most recent issue of Current Contents, this procedure was followed through preceding issues until the random sample of 1,200 subjects was ob- tained. The issues of Current Contents searched were from January 30, 1978, to December 25, 1978. A second list of random numbers was used to assign each article to one of the six experimental conditions. Whenever a previously selected author's name reappeared on the list for inclusion in the sample, this article was skipped and the random number sequence continued. If an author's address was either ambiguous or outside the continental United States, the article was also skipped. A standard reprint request card was mailed to each subject. This was a preprinted 3 × 5-inch index card asking the subject for a reprint of his or her article entitled . . . . which appeared in " - - " This was followed by the requester's name and academic rank. The bottom por- tion of the card could be cut and used as an address label to facilitate returning the reprint. All nonstandard parts of the card, including the name and rank of the person making the request, were typed.

All reprint requests were mailed on February 5, 1979. This mailing date had several advantages. First, the period following the mailing would be during an academic term at most educational institutions, a time when authors who hold faculty appointments are more likely to be at their addresses. Second, this date was well after the usual seasonal mailing fluctuations associated with Christ- mas. Finally, the date chosen for mailing the reprint requests allowed at least six weeks since publication for the authors to have obtained reprints of their articles from the publishers. All reprint request cards were metered rather than stamped.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Across conditions, 906 (76%) of the 1,200 authors responded within the first 8 weeks. By 12 weeks, 946 (79%) had responded; and by 16 weeks, 977 (81%) had responded. These figures include 15 authors who wrote to indicate

Reprint Behavior 1095

that they had exhausted their supplies of reprints. A total of 17 reprint request cards, approximately equally distributed across the various conditions, were returned because the addressee was not located.

These results can be compared to those of Seiler (1979), who sent 168 reprint requests to authors selected from the 1975 issues of Current Contents. Seller was interested in how the actual form of the request influenced reprint returns (e.g., typed letter, handwritten postcards). Direct comparisons are not possible, since ~iler sent reprint requests to both United States and foreign authors, as well as having sampled from both psychology and sociology journals. Seiler reported that 106 (63%) of the reprints were returned within 102 days (median = 17 days); the typed postcard request form had a response rate of 80%. Our 81% return rate in 112 days is quite comparable.

Because the vast majority of the reprints were returned by the eighth week and because there were numerous empty cells in the 9-16-week matrix, it was decided t2taat all subsequent analyses would be based upon the first 8-week period only. Table I is a summary of the total number of responses received in the first 8 weeks as a function of the sex and academic rank of the requester.

In order 1:o determine whether the sex and/or rank of the requester had any effect on the frequency of responses received, three chi-square tests were performed. The first analysis examined sex differences (collapsed across rank), the second examined academic rank differences (collapsed across sex), and the third tested for a possible sex by rank interaction. None of these tests was statistically significant (X a < 1.00). These results indicate that (1) males and females were equally likely to receive reprints (451 and 455, respectively), and (2) no evidence indicated that academic status affected the number of reprints returned (graduate student = 306, assistant professor = 300, and professor = 300).

Although there were no significant differences in the frequency of re- sponses as a function of sex and/or rank, it was still possible that differences existed in terms of the rate at which reprints were returned. To investigate this possibility a 2 X 3 ANOVA (sex × rank) was conducted. Such an analysis can determine any sex and/or status differences in the rate of return. For this analysis, the week in which a reprint was returned constituted the experimental datum. For example, if a reprint was returned during week 2, a score of 2 was assigned to the reprint. The results of the analysis revealed a significant main effect for sex (F(1,901) = 4.43, p < .05), so that males received their reprints sooner than females. The main effect for rank and the sex by rank interaction did not approach statistical significance. Table II provides a summary of the mean rate of reprint return for the six experimental conditions.

It would be of interest to determine whether the sex and/or rank of the reprint sender (i.e., the subject) influenced reprint behavior. Although there

1096 Searleman, Morris, Beeker, and Makosky

c)

<

O

2 .

©

0~

©

t~

L~

Reprint Behavior

Table II. A Summary of the Mean Rate of Reprint Returns as a Function of the Sex and Academic Rank of the Requester

t ,

1097

Requester N Mean (weeks) Standard deviation

Males Graduate student 149 2.92 1.54 Assistant professor 153 3.02 1.52 Professor 149 2.85 1.55

Females Graduate student 157 3.15 1.58 Assistant professor 147 3.15 1.60 Professor 151 3.14 1.50

was no feasible way to determine the academic rank of subjects, it was often possible to determine the subject's sex by noting the first name. This method had the l imitation that an author who used initials or whose name was an- drogynous was excluded from the sample. By this method, we identified 147 women and 577 men who received reprint requests. During the first 8 weeks,

there was a significant difference in the percentage of responses received as a function of sex (X 2 = 11.86, p < .001). We received 451 (78%) responses from males and 195 (65%) from females.

A three-way chi-square analysis (sex of sender × sex of requester × rank of

requester) was performed for number of responses received. The results indicated no evidence for an association among these three variables (X2(5) = 3.66, ns). Similarly, none of the separate pairwise chi-square analyses approached statistical significance. The total number of reprints returned by male and female authors as a function of sex and rank of the requester is shown in Table III.

To determine whether the sex of the sender affected the rate of return, a 2 × 2 × 3 ANOVA (sex of sender × sex of requester X rank of requester) was performed, with weeks again constituting the experimental datum. The only interesting finding was a marginally signficiant interaction between sex of sender and academic rank of requester (F(2, 534) = 2.65, p < .07). As Figure 1 shows, female authors generally responded more rapidly to requests from assistant

professors and less rapidly to professors than did male authors. In summary, we can say that for our sample as a whole, the response

frequency of 81% is similar enough to the 80% of Seiler (1979) to confirm the conclusion that a typed postcard is a very effective form of reprint request. Nearly half of all responses were received by the end of the second week.

Overall, tile l ikelihood of receiving a response to a request for reprint materials seems unaffected by academic rank. However, in terms of rate of return, some evidence suggested that male and female authors are differentially

1098 Searleman, Morris, Becker, and Makosky

t r )

t'-- t ' q

o

©

r - ,

©

Reprint Behavior 1099

4.0

WEEK OF 3.0[ RETURN i

2'0 i 1.O

1

FEMALE AUTHOR . . . . MALE AUTHOR

r t i

GRADUATE STUDENT ASSISTANT PROFESSOR PROFESSOR

ACADEMIC RANK OF REQUESTER

Fig. 1. Mean rate of return as a function of sex of author and academic rank of requester.

affected by the academic rank of -the requester. In addition, sex of requester seems to affect the speed with which requests will be honored: Men received responses significantly faster than women, suggesting preferred treatment for this type of status variable. These findings suggest that "temporary" low status, as in the case of academic rank, has a less potent effect on behavior than does the permanent status variable of sex. The fact that men are more likely than women to respond to reprint requests is open to several interpretations. Perhaps sending a reprint can be viewed as a form of helping behavior. If so, the present results are consistent with the claim that males are more likely to engage in helping behaviors than are females (Middlebrook, 1980; Piliavin, Rodin, & Piliavin, 1969). Alternatively, women, because of their lower status, may have less clerical assistance, less money for reprints, etc.

These findings suggest other areas for research, such as the effect of the status of the institution with which the requester is affiliated and other indica- tions of administrative or faculty status (e.g., J. Tyler, Department Chairperson). In addition, other measures of preferential treatment from colleagues should be developed in an attempt to determine the breadth and importance of such treatment in the lives of academicians.

REFERENCES

Berkowitz, L.A suyvey o f social psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1980.

Bernard, J. Academic women. New York: New American Library, 1966, Frieze, I. H., Parsons, J. E., Johnson, P. B., Ruble, D., & Zellman, G. L. Women and sex

roles. A social psychological perspective. New York: Norton, 1978.

1100 Searleman, Morris, Becker, and Makosky

Henley, N. Body polities: Power, sex, and non-verbal communication. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1977.

Jones, R., Hendrick, C., & Epstein, Y. Introduction to social psychology. Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer Associates, 1979.

Middlebrook, P. N. Social psychology and modern life (2nd ed.). New York: Knopf, 1980. Penner, L. Social psychology." A contemporary approach. New York: Oxford University

Press, 1978. Piliavin, I., Rodin, J., & Piliavin, J. Good Samaritanism: The underground phenomena?

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1969, 13,. 289-299. Raven, B. H., & Rubin, J. Z. Social psychology: People in groups. New York: Wiley, 1976. Seiler, L. H. On requesting reprints. Journal of Social Psychology, 1979, 107, 141-142.